And now for something completely different...

[weakwarrior]

And, finally, nations need to agree upon strategies to encourage net zero population growth, because the problem is not just over consumption, but also world over population.

Whether you left out nuclear by oversight or intentionally, I do not know...

And if you don´t think nuclear energy is safe then you can solve kandrathe´s problem with Pete´s solution.

Anyway, I doubt we will make it another century without a world war, and to quote Einstein "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" after which all these problems are solved.

This is *the* most important (maybe even the *only* important) ecological question. A reduction of the world population by a factor of ten to a hundred would make this a much better planet for all species, including ours. This reduction needs to start soon, preferably within the next decade. To drop the population by a factor of, say, 10 in the next hundred years would require a (negative) growth rate of approximately -3% per year. This may be unrealistically high. Consider a simple model: each generation produces half as many children as its population. Then a reduction by a factor of ten will take over three generations. That's about a century. Needless to say, this is a very long term problem. But it must be solved, for there is no such thing as a sustainable growth rate (except zero growth).

It is worth noting that in the short term a population decrease hurts the aging population since there are fewer working people feeding more mouths. Of course in the end the aging population will die anyway and you are left with a new population with a stable base.